首页> 外文期刊>Quality Assurance >A comparison of the U. S. EPA fifra GLP standards with the U.S. fda GLP standards for nonclinical laboratory studies
【24h】

A comparison of the U. S. EPA fifra GLP standards with the U.S. fda GLP standards for nonclinical laboratory studies

机译:针对非临床实验室研究的美国EPA fifra GLP标准与美国fda GLP标准的比较

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

In the early 1980's both the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration were receiving studies on the products that they regulate That were unscientifically sound, some even being fraudulent. Studies were being Submitted that had not been done under sound scientific practice; data were Missing; necessary documentation to reconstruct the study, also known as an Audit trail, was not in place. It was this evidence that lead to the Good Laboratory Practice Standards (GLPs) being codified and becoming regulation.
机译:在1980年代初期,环境保护署和食品药品监督管理局都在接受对其所管制产品的研究,这些产品听起来不科学,甚至有些是欺诈性的。提交的研究没有根据可靠的科学实践进行;数据丢失;没有必要的文档来重建研究,也称为审计追踪。正是这些证据导致了良好实验室规范(GLP)的制定和成为法规。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号